5. STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR B. PINOTE v. JUDGE ROBERTO L.

AYCO

The judge’s act of allowing the presentation of the defense witnesses in the absence of public prosecutor or a
private prosecutor designated for the purpose is a clear transgression of the Rules.

Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of South Cotabato allowed the defense in a criminal case
to present evidence consisting of the testimony of two witnesses, even in the absence of State Prosecutor
Ringcar B. Pinote who was prosecuting the case. State Prosecutor Pinote was at that time undergoing medical
treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City.

On the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case, Pinote refused to cross-examine the two defense
witnesses, despite being ordered by Judge Ayco, maintaining that prior proceedings conducted in his absence
were void. Judge Ayco considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine the two defense
witnesses.

Hence, arose the present administrative complaint lodged by Pinote against Judge Ayco for “Gross Ignorance
of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Ayco violated the Rules on Criminal Procedure for allowing the defense to
present evidence in the absence of a prosecutor

HELD: Yes. As a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of the
public prosecutor. If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however, or in case there are no
public prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to the approval of the court. Once so
authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case until the termination of the trial
even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person
directly prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. It is on this account that the presence of a public
prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state interests, foremost of which is its
interest to vindicate the rule of law, the bedrock of peace of the people.

Judge Ayco’s intention to uphold the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case, no matter how
noble it may be, cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due process, so is the State.

Judge Ayco’s lament about Pinote’s failure to inform the court of his inability to attend the hearings or to file a
motion for postponement thereof or to subsequently file a motion for reconsideration of his Orders allowing
the defense to present its two witnesses on said dates may be mitigating. It does not absolve Judge Ayco of his
utter disregard of the Rules.

6. People v. Piccio

Facts: Gimenez, President of Phil. Integrated Advertising Agency, advertising arm of Yuchengco Group of
Companies, filed an affidavit for libel before Office of City Prosecutor against Parents Enabling Parents
Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI) for posting “Back to the Trenches: A Call to Arms, AY/HELEN Chose the War Dance w/
Coalition. As alleged in the complaint, was highly defamatory and libelous. The Office of City Prosecution of
Makati City found probable cause to indict 16 trustees, officers, and/or member of PEPCI.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners, being mere private complainants, may appeal an order of the trial court
dismissing a criminal case even without the OSG’s conformity.

Ruling: No.
It is well-settled that the authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the Court and
the CA is vested solely in the OSG which is the law office of the Government whose specific powers and
functions include that of representing the Republic and/or the people before any court in any action which
affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require. (remarks: case did not mention rule
110)

Here, it is clear that petitioners did not file their appeal merely to preserve their interest in the civil aspect of
the case. Rather, by seeking the reversal of the RTC’s quashal of the information in Criminal Case No. 06-875
and thereby seeking that the said court be directed to set the case for arraignment and to proceed with trial, it
is sufficiently clear that they sought the reinstatement of the criminal prosecution of respondents for libel.
Being an obvious attempt to meddle in to the criminal aspect of the case without the conformity of the OSG,
their recourse, in view of the above discussed principles, must necessarily fail. To repeat, the right to
prosecute criminal cases pertains exclusively to the People, which is therefore the proper party to bring the
appeal through the representation of the OSG.